ESCAPE WAR.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1922, Page 5

ESCAPE WAR.

1 ALLIES AND NEAR EAST. BRITAIN LEFT ALONE. STEPS TO AVOID CONFLICT. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. i Received October 14, 5.5 p.m. London, Oct. 13. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, speaking at Birmingham, referring to foreign policy, emphasised the neutrality of the Government as between the Greeks and the Turks. The Kemalists had been encouraged by some divergence in the Allied policy, and by their victory over the Greeks, to try conclusions with the Allies. Britain’s main object had been to prevent Constantinople sharing the fate of Smyrna. The value of Lord Curzon’s services in the matter equid not be over-rated. Mr. Asquith and Lord Grey of Felloden were always praising their diplomacy of other days, but the end of their skilful diplomacy, however, was a great war. The Allies hoped, and were encouraged by ex-President Wilson, to believe that America would take au active part in the settlement of peace with Turkey. But they had been disappointed. Subsequent events, such as the non-ratifica-tion of the peace treaty of August, i 1920, and the recall of Tino, profoundly affected the Government’s policy. M. I Bouillon, representing the French Government. visited Angora, and other events encouraged the Kemalist pretensions, and gave suggestion of a possible want of unity among the Allies, who, including the French, had previously agreed that any attack by either the Turks or the Greeks on neutral zones should be forcibly repelled. The French military received instructions to withdraw, and Britain was confronted with a serious problem. The Government thereupon decided to maintain the freedom of the Straits until they were handed over to the League of Nations, thus the Straits had been preserved from danger, and a peace conference secured.

Referring to foreign policy, he said we had been determined as far as lay in our power to prevent the war which devastated Asia Minor from spreading into Europe. He believed the Government’s policy had been successful, but success was not due to any help received from the Opposition in the recent crisis. We had been the heirs of Mr. Asquith’s and Viscount Grey’s policy. No question of principle divided the Liberal and Unionist colleagues at present. These were not the days for reviving differences, -but for rallying all parties to the defence of the constitution and social economic order, whereon their safety and prosperity depended. He had no doubt when tile new House of Commons came into being it would he very different from the present House. If Labor obtained a majority, heavy would bp the responsibility of those who could not take a national view in time of national danger. Direct action would triumph over a Govern ment who, as Mr. Clyhes had s«id, would not be allowed to lead but must take its instructions from a caucus. Mr. Chamberlain said he spoke under a great sense of obligation to the party which he had represented for thirty years. He thought that in the days of struggle and stress he should subordinate his own party aims and personal considerations to the welfare of the Empire. He had worked with Mr. Lloyd George in perfect harmony. The latter had strengthened the Unionist element in the Cabinet, and no question of principle had ever separated them. He could not pretend to say in what circumstances or conditions co-operation between ourselves and our present Allies could best be obtained in the new Parliament. He could say with conviction that union should be our first consideration, but it would be criminal to allow narrow party prejudices to sacrifice the country’s interests and 'betray the great cause which we, as a party, should cherish and maintain, and which, if abandoned or betrayed by us, cannot be sustained by any other force within the realm. LABOR LEADER’S REPLY. REASON FOR STRIKE THREAT. RIGHTS OF THE PARTY. Received October 15, 5.5 p.m. London, Oct. 13. Mr. J. R. dynes (leader of the. Parliamentary Labor Party), replying to Mr. Austen Chamberlain, in a speech at Reading, said Bolshevism was produced in Russia by the suppression of all popular liberty and a rebellion can be fomented in Britain by Ministers seeking to put the Labor Party outside the pale of constitutional action. He said Mr. Chamberlain’s pronouncement was a Labor menace and would deepen class antagonisms. “The Labor Party is as constitutional as any other political party/' declared Mr. Clynes. “It cannot always be blamed for decisions which the trade unions may reach on industrial questions. The trade unions recently threatened to advise a strike in order to prevent another war, but if the Ministers failed to use the League of Nations and kept Parliament closed in a time of crisis they ought not to be surprised at a threat of strike action.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.